가공매입 상당액을 가수금 또는 가지급금 회수로 회계처리한 경우 사외유출[국승]
Seocho 208west 1425 ( October 29, 2008)
In the case of accounting of the processing purchase amount as a provisional payment or a provisional payment, the outflow from the company;
Even if there was no cash outflow at the time of the processing purchase, it is reasonable to view that the processed processing price was out of the company at the time of the half of the processed amount, so the representative shall be deemed to have been out of the company, and there was no error in the disposition imposing the Class A
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s imposition of each wage and salary income tax of KRW 69,186,260 on February 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff, KRW 12,410,930 on the year 203, KRW 32,782,830 on the year 2004, and KRW 69,186,260 on the year 205 is revoked.
1. Circumstances of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that conducts apartment and building management business from March 22, 1995.
나. 원고는 ☆☆ ★★1차 아파트, ○동 ●●아파트 등의 입주자대표회의와 공동주택의 위ㆍ수탁 관리계약을 체결하고 있음을 기회로,2003년부터 2005년까지 위 아파트입주자 대표회의가 직접 대금을 지급한 엘리베이터 및 정화조 수선ㆍ유지, 청소ㆍ방역 등의 용역업체로부터, 마치 원고가 직접 대금을 지급하고 용역을 공급받은 것처럼, 공급가액 합계 392,065,000원의 매입세금계산서와 공급금액 합계 56,070,000원의 계산서(이하 매입 세금계산서 및 계산서상의 금액을 합한 것을 '쟁점 금액'이라 한다)를 수취하여, 위 과세 기간 동안 피고에 대하여 쟁점 금액에 관하여 매입세액 공제 및 손금 산입을 하여 부가 가치세 및 법인세 신고를 하였다.
C. From December 18, 2006 to January 12, 2007, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and then appropriated the input tax amount and costs as if the Plaintiff had not spent the input tax amount and the costs as above, the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount and the non-deductible tax amount as to the above issue amount and disposed of the bonus to the representative on the ground that the gross income equivalent to the issue amount was reverted to the representative, and then disposed of the bonus to the representative on February 1, 2008. On February 1, 2008, the Defendant issued a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff as to Class A earned income tax, 12,410,930, 32,782, 830, 69,186, and 260 won for the year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 31, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 29, 2008.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1, 2, 5, 10 evidence, Eul 1 through 3 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
In cases where the amount of cash (including cash carried over) as of the date of supply on the tax invoice or invoice falls short of the amount on the above tax invoice or invoice, the Plaintiff received provisional payments from the representative director or collected provisional payments from the service company on the same day and accounted as if it were paid to the service company. If the total amount of cash falls short of the amount on the above tax invoice or invoice, the Plaintiff accounts as if it was paid to the representative director or as if it was paid provisional payments on the same day. Thus, the key amount was not actually leaked from the company. Therefore, the disposition of this case which deemed that the amount of cash was leaked and reverted to the representative director is unlawful.
B. Determination
1) Where a corporation appropriates the processing costs in its account book, the corporation’s profit equivalent to the processing costs shall be deemed to have been leaked to a private company, barring special circumstances. In such a case, the special circumstance that deeming the total amount of the processing costs, etc. is not leaked to a private company needs to be proved by the corporation asserting it (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du16347, Dec. 24, 199).
2) In this case, Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 (including provisional number) cannot be deemed to have been distributed out of the country, or profits equivalent to the above issues were not paid to the representative director. Rather, the plaintiff calculated false accounting of the issue amount on the tax invoice or invoice by deducting the input tax amount on the issue amount as above and including the deductible expenses in cash from the service company. In the case where the sum of cash (including cash carried forward) in the above accounting process falls short of the above tax invoice or invoice, the plaintiff received provisional payment from the representative director or received provisional payment from the service company as if it were paid from the service company. According to the facts that the plaintiff received provisional payment from the representative director and received provisional payment in cash other than the above issue amount through investigation, the plaintiff did not have any dispute over the issue amount of the plaintiff's constructive payment or provisional payment, or the plaintiff's withdrawal of the above amount including the plaintiff's transcript Nos. 15 and 16, the plaintiff's overall statement of the issue.
3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.